commentary of semiramiss' essay

Overall Semiramiss’ essay was written very well and there wasn’t much I would change about it. She clearly stated what the problem was in her first paragraph of the essay. I think it is a good topic because it is something that most households can relate to. Also, it is a topic that is serious and relevant for the time. She didn’t exaggerate the problem at all and it applies to a large amount of people, especially in America. Skeptics may doubt the effectiveness of the solution, just because it is hard with all the violent video games out there to just ban every violent video game all together. It would be something that would take a lot of effort and time and even after that there would still be people with violent video games out there or maybe even illegal bootlegs of these games. I think that you should have wrote more about how they should be outside playing and how it is causing obesity too because you touched on this topic in the beginning of your paper but never brought it up again, or perhaps just drop that part where you mention those topics. I did like how you brought up possible problems, like how the sales of video games might go down, but it will not cost the state(s) any money. If it is helping kids be less violent and more emotionally stable that yes it out ways the cost. I don’t think that a skeptic would bring up counterproposals in her paper because she mentioned that a possible solution might be that you have to be eighteen or older to enter video game stores that sell or offer these violent video games. It was good that you put examples of how these games are effecting the children that grow up playing them.

reflection on ethical paper

I was very happy with my essay after revising it with the help of Mr. Brown’s feedback. I changed a lot of grammar errors to help my essay flow more and make more sense as you read it. I also eased into my thesis much better after revising it from my draft, with the help of Mr. Brown’s revision notes and I think that helped it a lot by giving more information on vivisection before I actually gave my side on the topic. Also, in my second paragraph I gave a too big of word for word quote that took up too much space and was unnecessary so then I paraphrased it, only mentioning the details the reader needed to know. Another thing that I changed that I think greatly help improve my paper was that I mentioned a quote from Darwin in the third paragraph and with the help from Mr. Brown he suggested that I elaborate on the importance of that quote and turn it into a whole separate paragraph, which really helped me prove my argument in my paper. In my second to last paragraph I had information that didn’t really belong in that paragraph so I put it in the previous paragraph and it made way more sense. I also changed how I started out my conclusion because it wasn’t really formal and clear before.

6 harsh truths

1.       Are we too lazy to change the things in our lives that we don’t like?

2.       Why are we so sensitive when someone tells us a harsh truth?

3.       Are the majority of people satisfied being “miserable”?

I think as human beings we like to complain about the things we don’t like about ourselves and about the things we don’t like about or in our lives. This being said, I think that most humans aren’t quick to change the things we don’t like about our lives because we think that the hassle to change is greater than the outcome. What I’m basically trying to say that humans are lazy, at least the majority. As David Wong said in his article; we want to be skinny without working out or changing what we eat, we want to get the pretty girl without even approaching her, etc. Many of us obsess with things we want but aren’t willing to work for it, we rather settle for things in life just because it is easier for us. I’m not sure what other reason to give for this other than that we are naturally lazy beings. Not only are we lazy but we are ultra-sensitive too, especially when someone gives us a harsh truth. Personally, I think that this is something that is only getting worse and worse as times goes on because now a days children are raised being told that they are the best and can do anything. Therefore when someone tells them their not the best and didn’t achieve something they take it personally and don’t know how to handle it. No matter if we change, there will just always be those people that want things in lives more than others and those will be the people that succeed in life and achieve their goals. And for the rest of the people they are satisfied being “miserable.”

Daniel Yankelovich, "Stepping Off Maslow's Escalator" (1984)

1.       When do we find self-realization?

2.       Is the “self” only defined by caring for others?

3.       Why are we so obsessed with find our-selves?

I don’t think that there is a certain point in everyone’s lives where we find our-selves.  Yankelovich says at one point that someone describes when someone close to them was near death and it was then that they reached self-realization. He also gave the complete opposite example of another person that was near death and how he didn’t seem like himself and that he would reminisce about when he was a child. Personally, I think that not everyone will leave this world having a confident outlook on whether or not they reached self-realization.  It is something you may reach by just living your life and realizing the things, people, places, etc. that you like and that you can relate to. You may think that you have reached self-realization at one point and later on in life realize that you hadn’t.

 I do not know why psychologists and the everyday person obsesses with “finding themselves.” I don’t understand why it is so important to reach self-realization…I think It’s better to go on living your life day to day and not spending so much time on over analyzing whether or not we are the best self we can be. Also, maybe if people didn’t spend so much time analyzing this thought than they might actually reach their “perfect self,” just through living and making mistakes and learning from them.

However, I do think that once you are confident with you and what you have become in your life than comes the caring for others (not that you can’t care for someone/something without reaching self-realization). I just think that once you have reached this point in your life than you can allow yourself to be vulnerable and tell people about the mistakes you’ve gone through in your life, in order to help them with something they might be going through. It’s almost as if you don’t need to be fixing anything in yourself so than you are able to help others with themselves.

Kincaid's, "A Small Place"

1.)    Overall, is tourism good or bad?

2.)    How come when we become tourists “we become ugly?”

3.)    Does this make readers want to visit or avoid Antigua?

Overall, tourism is good for every country. Without tourists some cities or even larger areas wouldn’t flourish and this might even result in poverty.  “An ugly thing, that is what you are when you become a tourist, an ugly, empty thing, a stupid thing, a piece of rubbish pausing here and there to gaze at this and taste that, and it will never occur to you that people who inhabit the place in which you have just paused cannot stand you, that behind their closed doors they laugh at your strangeness (you do not look the way they look); the physical sight of you does not please them; you have bad manners 9it is their custom to eat their food with their hands; you try eating their way, you look silly; you try eating the way you always eat; you look silly) they do not like the way you speak…”

                I totally agree with this excerpt from Kincaid, although it may come off a bit harsh it is very true. Most of us live in South Orange County where we experience plenty of tourism during summer time and we can all relate how annoying it is to try and go to the beach and have all these people taking all the parking and spots on the beach that are not there the rest of the 9months out of the year. We mock the male Europeans that are there wearing speedos or tiny little shorts because this is what we’re not use to seeing or accustom to, but to them this is normal. We get angry when we see a car with an out of state license plate causing traffic because there are sight-seeing or aren’t sure where they are going. But, we do not realize that when we travel somewhere that we never been or aren’t use to that we become these people that we despise oh so much. Why is it that when you take someone out of their normal element that they become “an ugly, empty thing, a stupid thing?” Does it make us stupid that we aren’t familiar with a certain surrounding or do we come off stupid to the locals that live there…?

commentary #2 on kayla's paper

Kayla, I think you did a great job on using ethos, pathos, and logos. You broke every paragraph down out these three main topics and you also gave great definitions of what ethos, pathos, and logos is. This is very important in connecting to the reader that Hitchens actually achieved all three forms in his article. You also did a very good job on your thesis, it was clear and defined on what you were going to be talking about in your paper. It was also very clear that you thought Hitchens had successfully convinced in his article that water boarding is in fact a form of torture and never did you seem that you thought otherwise in your paper. I really liked how you did a summary of “Believe Me It’s Torture” in your second paragraph because not everyone that might be reading your paper read Hitchens article as well. This was a good idea because you let people reading your paper understand what you were writing about, so they got a clearer view in case they had not read Hitchens article or in case they forgot what it was actually about.

Throughout your body paragraphs you achieved your points of ethos, pathos, and logos by using quotes from Hitchens article. You also picked relevant quotes to what you were talking about at the time. You also brought up how Hitchens might not have achieved that water boarding is a form of torture in this part of your essay, “In the midst of a very descriptive paragraph making great use of Pathos, Hitchens admits to having a great fear of drowning that comes from early in his childhood. Some readers might say that this statement makes his argument invalid because of course water boarding would fell like torture to him if he already has a great fear of drowning. Would it feel as much like torture to someone who loved the ocean and had no childhood accident that gave them that irrational fear? Of course it would. Hitchens saves himself when he includes the statement “Not that that makes me special: I don’t know anyone who likes the idea of drowning” (1). This statement puts a stop to the thoughts that make his argument invalid; no one likes the idea of drowning.” This was good point in your paper because you showed where Hitchens may contradict himself, but you shut down that thought through your rebuttal of, “who isn’t scared of drowning?” Overall I think your essay is pretty strong and you achieved all the guidelines you were supposed to meet. GOOD JOB! (:

rhetorical critique (draft)

Monica Rivera

Profesor Brown

English 1B

25 March 2013

Torture Is Torture

            In Christopher Hitchens, “Believe Me, It’s Torture,” he argues how waterboarding is in fact a form of torture. Waterboarding is a “tactic” performed and/or endured by Green Berets and other special forces in training. Hitchens’ overall rhetorical success was attained through the use of logos, ethos, and pathos.

            Logos means: persuading by the use of reasoning including; unspoken assumptions, use of evidence, and justification of claims. Hitchens especially establishes the use of logos through unspoken assumption. This is so because through the whole article he never gives what the actual definition of torture is. He writes his article assuming the entire time that everyone reading agrees that waterboarding is classified as torture. It’s pretty safe to say that this is an unspoken assumption because the definition of torture is an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict sever physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from-the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; the administration of application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; the threat of imminent death. By adding the absolute definition of what torture mean it would have only made his claim stronger. He might not have added in the definition because he took in consideration through kairos, the timing and appropriateness for the occasion, that the demographic reading Vanity Fair already knew what the definition of torture was.

            Hitchens also uses logos through justification of claims. Not only his argument that waterboarding is torture but Hitchens himself actually undergoes to become the victim of being waterboarded. He goes on to tell about his experience through vivid details. This is an excellent example of justification of claims because Hitchens wanted to leave no doubt to his readers on whether or not waterboarding did torture the victims, which he proves successfully.

            The definition of ethos is a means of convincing by the character of the author, including; appearing knowledgeable, audience-based reason, and fairness to opposing views. Considering Christopher Hitchens is a writer for a Vanity Fair, one of the most established magazines in the world, gives the answer to the audience that he is knowledgeable. If this is not enough evidence than that is okay because Hitchens gives many knowledgeable examples and evidence in his articles. After the third paragraph where he explains that he will be consenting to be a victim of waterboarding, he gives us an excerpt from the document he had to agree to and sign. It goes as follows, “’Water boarding’ is a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional, and psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to respiratory and neurological systems of the body…As the agreement went on to say, there would be safeguards provided during the ‘water boarding’ process, however, these measures may fail and even if they work properly they may not prevent Hitchens from experiencing serious injury or death.” By giving pieces of the contract that he had to sign shows how dangerous, if not deathly waterboarding can be.

            Hitchens article may seem one-sided at time, but he does give fairness to opposing views. Although he does not agree or “trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint,” he still gives a chance to see why people might be in favor for waterboarding. He does by talking about Mr. Nance, whom has been involved with the sere (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) program since 1997 and is in favor for waterboarding. He goes on to tell how Mr. Nance has had a completely different experience with life than him and has actually told him he “would personally cut bin Laden’s heart out with a plastic M.R.E. spoon.” This being said, Mr. Nance does not even agree with the practice or adoption of waterboarding by the United Sates. He goes on to say how it is unjust, a torture technique, a means of extracting junk information, and that we cannot get mad if other regimes perform waterboarding on captive U.S. citizens.

            Pathos mean persuading by appealing to the reader’s emotions, including; use of concrete language, use of specific examples and illustration, use of narratives, use of words, metaphors, and analogies with appropriate connotations, and language appeals. Hitchens proved his argument of waterboarding being a form of torture especially through the use of pathos. Almost every one of his sentences uses concrete language and definitely paints a picture in your head of what it must be like to go through such extremeness. He uses pathos in the first paragraph saying, “In these harsh exercises, brave men and women were introduced to the sorts of barbarism that they might expect to meet at the hands of a lawless foe who disregarded the Geneva Conventions.” This is a prime example of the use of pathos because he uses strong adjectives and he is appealing to our emotions by making us feel sorry for these people that are undergoing these “exercises” to protect the rest of us.

            “I held my breath for a while and then had to exhale and as you might expect inhale in turn. The inhalation brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilating clamped over my face.” This is the excerpt from the part of Hitchens article where he describes the actual first-hand experience of waterboarding. He makes the reader feel that they are there and almost experiencing the torture and pain he is going through, through the use of his words. At this point he makes the reader understand how unbearable and barbaric this practice is and if they have not agreed with his claim the entire time, they do now through the use of emotions/pathos.

            “I am somewhat proud of my ability to “keep my head,” as the saying goes, and to maintain presence of mind under trying circumstances. I was completely convinced that, when the water pressure had become intolerable, I had firmly uttered the pre-determined code word that would cause it to cease. But my interrogator told me that, rather, to his surprise, I had not spoken a word. I has activated the “dead man’s handle” that signaled the onset of unconsciousness.” Hitchens had believed that the waterboarding process had ended because he told them to stop, but in fact that is not the case at all. Not only is waterboarding a form of torture but a completely unreliable means of getting information out of prisoners, which is the actual point of  practicing waterboarding on captives.

            Christopher Hitchens’ point in writing, “Believe Me, It’s Torture,” was to convince or sway the reader(s) that waterboarding is in fact a form of torture and should not be practiced for any reason. When the definition of waterboarding and the definition of torture are explained than there is no way that the reader could consider disagreeing with Hitchens because they are almost exactly the same word for word. Even if the reader did not know what waterboarding was before reading this article, they do now because Hitchens explained it so well through the use of logos, ethos, and pathos. He was also successful through the use of kairos.

Susan Sontag, "Regarding the Pain of Others"

1.)  Should the media be allowed to show graphic pictures of people?

2.)  Why is it that the media wants to show such indecent and horrible pictures to the world?

3.)  What emotions do these graphic pictures bring to us?

In response to question number two; “Why is it that the media wants to show such indecent and horrible pictures to the world?” Personally, I think the media broadcasts, prints, etc. these graphic pictures of people because they know that it will grab the consumer’s attention. Just like Sontag stated in her article that not only are pictures left for us to interpret ourselves, but they are also used to manipulate the demographic. For example, by showing a picture of a young man dead through the cause of war, will have Americans feeling sympathy that the young man did not fulfill his life and will feel sadness for him and his family. The media always try to show the most extreme version of the truth the grab the attention of its audience and they achieve this by showing these pictures because they know that most people will react emotionally. By doing this, they are manipulating us into hating whoever or whatever caused harm onto the person in the picture shown. Especially because a lot of people only will look at the picture and read the title, not continuing on to see what actually happened or what caused it. Also on the first page in Sontag’s article she says,”…Nevertheless, it was staged-by General Loan, who had led the prisoner, hands tied behind back, out to the street where journalists had gathered; he would not have carried out the summary execution there had they not been available to witness it.” This brings up the question of whether or not we can even trust the photographs we are seeing in the media, or are we just being shown what they want us to see…

HATE CRIMES

1.)    Will hate crimes ever be overcome?

2.)    Are hate crimes becoming better or worse with time?

3.)    Are hate crimes based on ignorance or pure hate?

In response to question number one, “Will hate crimes ever be overcome?” Personally, I do not think that hate crimes will ever be overcome and I do not think that it is realistic to think that they will every go away. People become prejudice, racist, and/or sexist from how they were grown up, their environment growing up, and/or an experience they went through in their life.

      Although I do think that prejudice, racism, and sexism have become less and less in America. I think it has to with our generation and the newer generations being exposed to people of different color, beliefs, and sexual orientations and we are realizing how everyone is equal and should be treated equal. People from my generation (at least whom I’ve been around) see everyone as normal and don’t put them into categories, so I think it is safe to say that we are slowly progressing to a world of fewer hate crimes. But progressing to where…are we just going to reach a point where we start to digress or to a place where we reach a plateau? I don’t think that we will ever be able to answer these questions; we will only be able to know once we get to the future and see for ourselves.

      “For hate is only foiled not when the haters are punished but when the hatred are immune to the bigot’s power. A hater cannot psychologically wound if a victim cannot psychologically be wounded. And that immunity can never be given; it can merely be achieved,” (Sullivan, 11). I don’t think its fare that Sullivan says this because as it is true it is not really the case. It is easy to say to not let someone’s words get to you, but when people are saying things about your race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. on a daily basis how can one not break down and take offense from the haters?

 It is natural for human beings to feel jealousy from other human beings, with jealousy comes dislike and hate. Therefore we will always have hate crimes.

     

commentary #1

In response to Semiramiss's essay, the opening is great and I really like the first sentence because I think that everyone can relate that we all us and/or rely on technology. The point of the essay is stated very clearly in the introductory paragraph. I also like how you don’t shoot down how technology and the internet are helpful to us and that it is not all negative. Your main reasons are stated in the first paragraph, which is good. I think you should have included not staying in touch with family and friends as part of your three reasons in the intro because it is a topic you speak about in your body paragraphs.

            I also enjoyed how you admitted that you might also be someone who overuses technology because you are relating to the reader and not just saying how people that use technology too  much are lazy. I also liked the quotes you chose from different articles, they fit well with what you’re talking about and back up your argument. You also have good rebuttals’ and back up your arguments well.

            One thing that confused was the part where you talked about how the percentage of people addicted to the internet is correlated with the amount of people addicted to cocaine or alcohol, I’m not really sure if that is a valid correlation and you might not want to add that in your paper. But if you did, I would elaborate on it more and explain in detail, possibly taking a full paragraph. All in all I enjoyed ready your paper, even though I wrote about the exact opposite view point haha. I could still relate and understand your points and view on how technology may be affecting us badly. I wrote the same thing in my essay how technology is making us lazier, so I do agree with you on that!

first draft

Monica Rivera                                                                                                             Rivera 1

Professor Brown

English 1B

20, February 2013

How Technology Has Changed Us

            It is completely aware to most of human kind how we are living in a new world now, a world that is revolved and relied on technology such as; computers, internet, tablets, iPods, phones, etc. Therefore, I must bring up the controversial topic of is all our advanced technology actually helping us or hurting us? Technology is helping us by opening our minds to any information we need or want to know in a matter of a click, we are able to get things done faster and more efficient, we’re able to communicate with loved ones that don’t live within a close distance, and it helps us save lives.

            There are many ways that technology is helping us and one of the major reasons why is that anything we need to know or are just curious about is at our fingertips, by a click or push of a button our question is answered. It definitely has made us smarter beings because all of the knowledge we are available to from our desktops, laptops, tablets, and phones. Some might say that this in fact is actually making us “stupid” because of how easy it is to know something about a topic and that we’re not retaining or storing it in our brains. I can understand where someone would get that idea from, but technology in no way is making us less knowledgeable. One negative thing I do have to say with having so much technology available to us is that it might be making us lazier. That is because we do not have to physically get up and go to the library to

                                                                                                                                              Rivera 2

pick out a book and do research on a certain homework assignment or project, but being physically lazy from time to time, does not make us less intelligent. It is so much easier and proficient to get research done with the internet; we are able to look up articles from journals and newspapers, books, and blogs in a matter of seconds. Just the internet alone cuts in half, if not more, the time it takes to complete a certain task at work or at school. From just typing this paper the technology of Microsoft Word has corrected me on my spelling or grammar, which without I might not have noticed and got docked down a few points on. It is also available to more people because before computers may have cost a thousand dollars or more, but now you can buy a reliable and trust worthy computer for five hundred dollars or less, so now it is easier for the majority of people to own their own computers or other electronics. Technology is not only making us more knowledgeable, but it is also making things easier and proficient to get things done in a certain amount of time.

             With all the advancements in technology we are able to keep in touch with our loved ones and friends that we would otherwise not be able to. This has all become available to us with the invention of the telephone in the 1870’s, now we are able to see the other person’s face through video chatting. Without technology we would never have the chance to keep in touch as much as we would like to with our family and friends that live in different states, countries, or even continents. Business’s even use video chatting for meetings now with different companies or workers that are in different areas of the world, this is another example of how technology is helping us be more proficient and achieve our goals at a more realistic time. We are also able communicate with our loved ones over sea at war and keep families and relationship strong because of this.

                                                                                                                                              Rivera 3

A very important way technology has helped the world as a whole is our advancements in medicine. There is nothing to argue with here because through technology we are able to further people’s life expectancy and help them through illness or injury. For example, scientists are now doing an experiment that can actually make the blind see again and have succeeded in the latest experiment. “Blindness first began creeping up on Barbara Campbell when she was a teenager, and by her late 30s, her eye disease had stolen what was left of her sight. Now, as part of a striking experiment, she can see again. So far, she can detect burners on her stove when making a grilled cheese, her mirror frame, and whether her computer monitor is on. She is beginning an intensive three-year research project involving electrodes surgically implanted in her eye, a camera on the bridge of her nose and a video processor strapped to her waist. The project, involving patients in the United States, Mexico and Europe, is part of a burst of recent research aimed at one of science’s most-sought-after holy grails: making the blind see,” (Belluck, A1). I bring this example up of how technology is very crucial in the medical world because it is a topic that is close to my heart because my grandpa is legally blind through his diagnosis of mackerel degeneration and he is currently seeking assistance through a research experiment at UCLA. Without the technology that allows scientists to uncover such a discovery than my grandpa wouldn’t even have the hope to see again. With more time and advances in technology the hope of curing diseases and illnesses doesn’t seem like such a far fetch idea anymore because we are aware of everything technology can do for us now. I am sure that many people can relate to a time where technology has saved, cured, or bettered someone close to them, so how technology ever be a bad thing to us? Without it we might have to see the ones we care about go.

           

                                                                                                                                  Rivera 4

Through technology we are able to receive information about anything we need to know from a click away, communicate with our friends and family at any time no matter where they might be, and save and better lives of the ones we care about. We live in a world surrounded by technology and electronic devices and by no means is it ever going to go away. If anything we are only going to become more technology advanced, where it’s going to be coming mandatory that you know how to work the newest electronic. It has already become mandatory in schools that you have or have access to the internet to complete your homework, assignments, and projects that are due through the use of the internet. All of my classes have a certain amount of time that is required to spend on the computer and internet. In fact most of my homework is done on the internet and must be turned in through the internet. It is the way we live our lives now from communications, school, work, to entertainment. Even if some still disagree that technology is helping us, doesn’t mean that it’s going to go anywhere anytime soon. And if it were to somehow vanish, I’m sure the world would panic and wouldn’t know what to do because of how reliant we are to it now.

           

"Waterboarding"

1.)    Should we torture captives?

2.)    Should waterboarding be allowed?

3.)    Is waterboarding a reliable tactic to get information out of captives?

 

Obviously as an American I do believe that torture is unjust, but I also do feel that there are certain occasions where there are exceptions. It’s not like Special Forces are going around and waterboarding innocent civilians as they please. They only use this tactic in special and extreme cases. These terrorists or other people that are a major threat to our country put themselves in the position to be forced for us to rely on other tactics to try and get them to confess or give us information. So I do not think it is fair for us as Americans and civilians to judge what the Special Forces do when handling dangerous people because this isn’t an ordinary situation and they are looking out for us and trying to protect us the best they can. People react differently when in extreme conditions and situations, so if they think that waterboarding is what is going to get the terrorists to cave in and confess that by all means I stand behind them.

Although, this does bring the question up of is waterboarding a reliable tactic to get information out of captives? As Hitchens says, “It may be a mean of extracting information, but it is also a means of extracting junk information. To put it briefly, even the C.I.A. sources for the Washington Post story on waterboarding conceded that the information they got out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was “not all of it reliable.” He goes on to say how it gives you memory loss and people confess things that do not even pertain to what they are asking…this being said, is it worth the torture and time to rely on this form of getting people come out with the answers to the questions they are asking?

anybody can become famous now a days....

1.) Does this generation even relaize what good music is?

2.) Is Lady Gaga a role model?

3.) Does this generation know the difference of whats reality and whats not?

Okay, I am going to touch on all three of the questions above. In my opinion I do not think that Lady Gaga is a superstar with actual talent, nor a good example of a role model. Gaga is a personality and character turned "superstar" by technology and auto-tone.

She associates her models as Elton John and the rest of the "greats," this does not mean that she is no where considered to be in the same catergory as them. Such artists have true, natural, and raw talent and aren't made famous by the things they where and do. If Gaga did not dress up and put an act on everytime she is photographed then she wouldn't be famous. My generation is mostly associated with famous people that become famous by making a fool of themselves on tv or the news to become famous.

So, I don't understand how anyone that becomes famous this way is in anyway a role model to anyone. I can see though how some might mistake her for a role model because she does speak out about gay rights and being who you are. Also, I don't understand how people look up to her for what she wears and does...do people not realize that she has people that dress her and tell her to act and that she doesn't think of any of the outlandish things she does on her own? To me, she is the last person to look up to because in my opinion everything about her is fake because this isn't who she is. How can someone be an activist on to be who you are when she isn't who she is?

In conclusion, I do not think that my generation knows the difference on whats reality and whats not. I say this because most of the people that are famous today are famous for "reality tv," in which isn't reality at all and is scripted. They look up to artists that don't actually have talents and claim to be oringinal when most to all the things they do are planned and not original in one bit.

Every one has their own opinions, let it be.

1.) Is David Weinberger's "A Marketplace of Echoes," asking us if the internet is making us stupid or if the internet is making us less diverse?

2.) Why are we always trying to figure out how something is harming the human race?

3.) Is the internet making us less diverse?

This is in response to question number three, "is the internet making us less diverse?" First of all I dont understand why we as human beings are always over analyzing things and trying to make it seem like technology such as the internet us setting us back.

In my opinion I think we are so far ahead of racisim and diversity than we were 100 years ago and I know all of us can agree on that. In a perfect world there would be no hate on gender, race, religion, etc but we do not live in a perfect world and it is time for people to start facing that. Also, lets be honest a perfect world would be absolutely boring so why are we always chasing after that?

I think people are who they are and feel the way they feel about things because how they were brought up and things they went through growing up and we cannot change that. Instead of worrying of trying to change everyone to the same beliefs and thoughts we should learn to agree to disagree.

I don't think the internet is making us less diverse because it opens us to be able to talk to all different kinds of people from all over the world. Therefore we are hearing millions of different opinions of different people. It's our choice on how we choose to listen to them and what they have to say and what we do with that information. I do agree with Weinberg though that we do tend to follow and surround ourselves with people that have the same opinions as ourselves but that's only natural, with or without the internet.

In conclusion I don't think that the world as a whole will ever not be racist or prejudice, but it's okay because if we didn't have different opinions and outlooks on life than we wouldn't be individuals.

1.) Is google making us stupid?

I can understand how one would come about this question in their mind, but i do not agree with it all. If anything Google has expanded our knowledge, maybe not exactly with things we "necessarily" need to know. With such ease anything you want to know is just a click away. I do not understand how Nicholas Carr can question Google when he quotes Scott Karp's blog. A blog that is only possible with technology, including Google. I think search engines are necessary to human kind and there's no going back. Google does so much for us all from entertainment, knowledge, research on papers, questions, communication, directions and the list goes on. One negative thing I might say about Google though, is that it's not making us stupid, it's making us lazy. Instead of having to get up and go to the library to do research, anything we need to know is at the comfort of our phones, laptops, computers, ipads, and tablets. We have the convenience of not having to leave our homes for anything really and as a result thus making us lazy. I personally can say that at times I do really on Google for things I have no answer to, but without it it may take me anywhere from hours to days to figure such a simple question. I think it's just time to face it that we are living in a world with such an ease as a result of the advancements of technology and that things have changed greatly over the years. We are in a technological worl and it's time to adjust and just accept it.

2.) How would the world react if there was no more Google?

3.) Are libraries becoming a thing of the past?